Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for letting us know about this. I'm afraid that this website is mainly bad news about companies so it's very refreshing and very decent for someone to come along and to give praise where praise is due. How about a link to their website?
    • Having a little additional think about this, I think that your interests are best protected in the following way: You inform the seller that you are obtaining the quotes which I have referred to above. Having received the quotes, you then inform them that you are proposing to have the work carried out at XXX garage and that you will expect that the seller will reimburse you for the costs and associated expenses. You can tell them though that you understand that they may want to control the work being done to the car and so you are willing to allow them to do it but as the fault has manifested itself at this point and that it is clear that the problem is their responsibility, if they wish to carry the work out themselves then they will have to organise the collection vehicle and the delivery of it to you once the work is completed. Of course this will be very expensive for them and they will either fail to respond or they will refuse. Whatever their reaction, you would then go on to say that as they have failed to respond/declined the invitation to carry out the repairs themselves, that you are now going to your preferred garage – one of the two quotations which you have supplied – and you will have the vehicle repaired there. You are giving them an opportunity to comment. I think that if you use this approach, then you will be able to demonstrate very clearly that they had a choice and therefore they will be unable to disassociate themselves from the repairs which are eventually carried out at your chosen repairer. Even though this exchange of correspondence may mean that it will take a week or so longer to have your repairs carried out, I think you should do this in order to protect yourself in the best way possible
    • Please name the dealer   I would start off by sending them a letter of rejection seeing as you are within the 30 days. This doesn't mean that you have to reject it but it reserves your position. Secondly, on the basis of what you say, I don't think that you need necessary to find the cheapest place. You should be looking at the best quality that you can find. I think the best thing to do would be to get to competing quotations for the work you propose to have carried out – and not necessarily at the cheapest place, but a couple of proper reputable garages – authorised for that kind of vehicle. Inform the dealer as to what you are doing and providing with copies of the estimates for the work before you put it in hand. Give them five days to object or to make other comments. Make it clear to them that once the work is carried out that you will be looking to them to reimburse you. Of course you are opening a can of worms here because if you get some further problems – more serious – you may find that the dealer is starting to say that because you have carried out your own work so your own repairer on the car, they cannot now say that any defects were inherent in the purchase – and that they may have been introduced by 1/3 party repairer. I'm afraid that you have certainly fallen into a trap of buying a car a long distance away from where you live. We find that people often tend to do that because they think the car they have found is the only one in the world for them. They forget to factor in the difficulties that they will be if there are defects – particularly if the car stopped altogether – the cost of transportation to the dealer, the cost of having to travel up and down the country to collect the car – and of course these difficulties could emerge several times through the initial years of your ownership of the vehicle if you are relying on your statutory rights and expect the dealer to meet those obligations. Furthermore, if you have to bring a court action against them you are now dealing with multijurisdictional claims – suing out of Scotland against the defendant in England and that adds to the complications. It's too late for you to do anything about this – unless you actually decide to reject the vehicle – but at the very least, other people who come across this thread may get some benefit from these comments. I think it's important for you to get the best quality repair you can and to make sure that the dealer is aware of what you are doing so that if later on they try to deny responsibility for further defects, that you will be able to show that they were fully appraised of what you are doing and they will have less room to manoeuvre themselves out of their statutory obligations. I'm afraid that purchasing a car from one dealer and then having it repaired by another service provider, brings into the same kinds of difficulties that somebody who purchases a central heating boiler from one supplier and then has it installed by a different supplier find themselves in. When things go wrong, the seller blames the installer. The installer blames the seller – and you, the customer, are piggy in the middle. Not a good place to be. I notice that you are doing things on the telephone. Big Fail! Read our customer services guide. In your situation you should be extremely careful to make sure that you have got a record of everything and a full paper trail
    • What information do DVLA need for a provisional licence ?   Think the ID issue needs to be looked at a bit more. Surely you have birth certificate, school information, Doctors records. School and Doctors should provide a letter to help with ID.                
    • Amex as with any creditor must help you the FOS should go with you and make them remove all interest charged from the very 1st time of asking for help. the FCA regulations actually almost dictate it, they most certainly clearly state that if the are FCA registered they must help.   it's very telling they have no marked your credit file....almost as if they know they are wrong. it's also telling that an irresponsible lending complaint might well be in order hear too, they can just keep upping the credit limit without checking you can pay. and ofcourse covid plays its part here and they've already admitted as they allowed payments holidays until october in line with the rest of the industry and they should be continuing that. you problem is you keep using the phone, no paperwork no record of things discussed. i'd get an SAR off to them. and get the comms/account log and all the statements from day one and go nail them.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 32 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
  • Recommended Topics

  • Recommended Topics

Cabot/Mortimer Court Claim - old Aqua CC


Recommended Posts

I like the one that andyorch did here..

 

 

  • Like 1

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

So this is good to submit?

 

thank you

 

1.By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua & the Defendant on or around 21/03/2014 (the Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue the defendant with a credit card.

 

2.The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due.

 

3.The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice.

 

4.The Agreement was assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant therefore claims £2539.88 and costs.

 

 

defence

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with New Day Ltd RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.

 

2. I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.

 

3. I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

4. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 78 request. The claimant did partially comply but failed to provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of said request.

 

5. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears,

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

add after 

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017.It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.
 

add at start of your 2.

2. paragraph 3 is noted: 

 

same for 3 re their para 4.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did you add in the bits?

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

As advised.

 

I can’t thank you enough.

 

1.By an agreement between New Day Ltd RE Aqua & the Defendant on or around 21/03/2014 (the Agreement) New Day Ltd RE Aqua agreed to issue the defendant with a credit card.

 

2.The Defendant failed to make the minimum payments due.

 

3.The Agreement was terminated following the service of a default notice.

 

4.The Agreement was assigned to the Claimant. The Claimant therefore claims £2539.88 and costs.

 

 

defence

 

The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any allegation to which a specific response has not been made.

 

The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) - Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.

 

1. Paragraph 1 is noted. I have in the past had financial dealings with New Day Ltd RE Aqua. I do not recall the precise details of the agreement and have sought clarity from the claimant.

 

2. Paragraph 3 is noted, however, I do not recall ever receiving a Default Notice pursuant to sec 87(1) CCA1974.

 

3. Paragraph 4 is noted, however I do not recall ever receiving this notice pursuant to sec136 of the Law of Property Act 1925.

 

4. On receipt of this claim I sent CPR 31.14 and section 78 request. The claimant did partially comply but failed to provide a valid copy of the agreement and therefore remains in default of said request.

 

5. It is therefore not accepted with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant and the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-

 

a) show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement ; and

b) show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and

c) Show or evidence service of a Default Notice/Notice of Sums in Arrears,

d) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim;

 

By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you should get notice soon that they have 28 days ish to do something.

if they don't it gets autostayed.

if it does move forward that will be an N180 from the court.

 

now get reading up on whats to come throughout the process should it go all the way.

 

plenty of claimforn card 

threads here to read

particularly in our legal successes forum for this one.

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...

Morning.

 

Had no response to any info request at all, other than a letter saying information had been requested as it wasn’t currently held. Given that 28 days have passed, next step is to approach the court, I believe? Or should I be allowing some extra time for any post to arrive, given COVID?

 

MCOL still shows we are at the defence stage in the recent transactions box.

 

Thank you for your advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

not been reading up then?

 

as per my last post..the claim is now stayed

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve read some other threads, rather my understanding of some of the language is not tremendously good.

 

Thank you for your help.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the court should have written to you acknowledging your defence filing?

 

dx

 

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...